SWA MDW crash

[KCFlyer]

KC, if it was reported that all SWA pilots smoked crack, you'd be here telling us how it enhances their senses and makes you feel safer... I honestly haven't seen an objective post from you in a couple of years.

Bus...you haven't seen me do anything to defend the crew. What you have seen is an effort to point out those who have tried, condemned and hung the crew before the "trial" of the NTSB investigation is complete. And in most of those cases, I rebut the implication (or outright statement) that "all" Southwest pilots are a bunch of cowboys. If the intent of the post I was responding to was to make me feel "unsafe" boarding a Southwest jet - it failed.

You've read statements in this thread that the "sterile cockpit" rule is never violated in UAL jets, yet it's pointed out that in UAL 232, there was a bit of "unsterile" comments made. Despite that, that crew did a remarkable job. And as I said, I've met Bill Records and after reading some of the posts on this board and thread, I find it hard to believe he was ever a pilot for United...because he was a very humble man - something that seems to be lacking from UAL pilots posting on these boards.

But then a post comes in from someone at another airline that points out "we don't wanna hear braking action as poor". Seems they are implying that the prudent thing to do is divert right then and there...yet one of their own pilots admitted on approach that "this is a can of worms" - yet continued the approach. Should he really be throwing stones?

I don't mind a discussion - it's the "hang 'em high" attitude that I take issue with. I'm sure you'd want to be afforded the same respect should something go amiss on one of your flights.

 

[N421LV]

2. Here we have ON TAPE, a SWA capt telling an SWA F/O that it would be perfectly fine with him to lie about the times to stay legal for the next leg. SWA NEEDS ACARS!!!

ATTENTION ALL SWA-BASHERS ON THESE FORUMS:

We have ACARS fleet-wide and have started using ACARS times as of about two weeks ago. So for everyone who has been on the "SWA fudges their on-time numbers" bandwagon all these years, keep a sharp eye on the July on-time stats when they come out. We'll soon settle this argument once and for all.

 

[Bizman]

everyone who has been on the "SWA fudges their on-time numbers" bandwagon all these years.

This is probably a true statement then, since you just got ACARS "about two weeks ago". Big brother is watching now. :unsure:

 

[KCFlyer]

This is probably a true statement then, since you just got ACARS "about two weeks ago". Big brother is watching now. :unsure:

So what will you all say if the ontime numbers show no change...or...improve?

 

[jbguppy]

So what will you all say if the ontime numbers show no change...or...improve?

Yes, I am sure they were always telling the exact truth on on time with no one watching....

Have another Drink cheerleader...

JBG

 

[KCFlyer]

Yes, I am sure they were always telling the exact truth on on time with no one watching....

Have another Drink cheerleader...

JBG

Missed the point JBG...let's see if there is a drastic change in numbers...if there is an improvement, I'm sure that the cowboys are guilty of poor math skills...right? If there's a drastic change...then maybe they WERE fudging the numbers. Check what's in your drink, slammer.

 

[Diversion]

I notice you post mostly in the AA forums. There is something about "glass houses" that one needs to bear in mind:Wow.

I do not work for American Airlines, so your glass house argument is wasted on me. If you check my posting history, you'll find I'm not very prolific here, I just tend to read when I find something interesting going on in the industry and chime in on the rare occaion when I feel compelled.

FWIW, I do not see a relevant parallel between the AA crash and the SW crash, aside from the fact that they both continued into deteriorating conditions. One is acknowledging that they are in a bad situation and the other is hoping not to hear a bad report on the radio so they can press on into a bad situation.

My comments were in line with the subject of this thread, and are expressing my amazement that a flight crew would hope to not want to hear the actual condition of the braking action if it is poor (nevermind the fact that the runway is short and has a tailwind). I fly SW on business quite a bit (admittedly, not by choice...I have a lot of AA miles). I only hope that this is not a prevalent attitude throughout the airline.

 

[KCFlyer]

I do not work for American Airlines, so your glass house argument is wasted on me. If you check my posting history, you'll find I'm not very prolific here, I just tend to read when I find something interesting going on in the industry and chime in on the rare occaion when I feel compelled.

Forgive me. I did check your posting history, and you post predominantly on the AA boards.

 

[BoeingBoy]

FWIW, I do not see a relevant parallel between the AA crash and the SW crash, aside from the fact that they both continued into deteriorating conditions. One is acknowledging that they are in a bad situation and the other is hoping not to hear a bad report on the radio so they can press on into a bad situation.

I presume all this talk of "not hearing" a report of "Poor" braking action is based on these comments:

HOT-2 "if it's poor we don't wanna hear it."

HOT-1 "no."

Obviously, none of us are mindreaders and know what was in the minds of these two pilots when they made those comments that night. I suppose it's possible to take those single comments, one by each pilot, in isolation and render a verdict. Of course, this requires assuming that two pilots, facing the same set of circumstances, came to the independent conclusion that they would forge ahead if they heard a "Poor" braking report since they hadn't discussed ignoring such a report prior to this exchange.

In fact, just the opposite had occured. During several discussions of the weather and the OPC numbers, the conclusion was that the Ops Specs and OPC said that they could land with a "Poor" report, but that neither one thought it was advisable. The pertinent comments (bolding mine):

HOT-2 "but if it was wet poor we'll do wet poor and see."

HOT-2 "wow. wooo. if it's poor it's scary."

HOT-1 "I ain't doin' it."

HOT-2 "max is thirty that's really scary."

HOT-1 "yeah."

HOT-1 "naw that's no good."

HOT-1 "can't do it."

HOT-2 "it says ya can but I don't wanna."

HOT-2 "so that I mean it the books says you can as long it's positive but man that's whoo."

HOT-1 "yeah."

HOT-2 "I mean it's (what is it) thirty feet at max braking whao."

HOT-1 "I know."

HOT-2 "I mean that's really tight."

HOT-1 "nope"

CAM-2 "can't do poor."

HOT-2 "one hundred and nine is a eight knot tailwind so if anybody says poor. we can't do it."

HOT-1 "yeah."

Note that there is no discussion of ignoring a "Poor" braking report anywhere prior to the two remarks that some interpret as an agreement to ignore such a report. In fact, quite the contrary. There is plenty of discussion that would lead one to believe that both pilots considered it too risky even though the OPC was telling them it was legal.

So my conclusion is that "we don't wanna hear it" is not an agreement to ignore a "Poor" braking report but rather further signs of an agreement that such a report would be bad because it would mean that they wouldn't attempt the landing - they would have to either divert or return to holding.

Jim

 

[Diversion]

So my conclusion is that "we don't wanna hear it" is not an agreement to ignore a "Poor" braking report but rather further signs of an agreement that such a report would be bad because it would mean that they wouldn't attempt the landing - they would have to either divert or return to holding.

I'd be more inclined to accept your conclusion if all they said is "we don't wanna hear it." What was actually said is "If it's poor we don't wanna hear it."

It's a small, but very significant difference that carries a much different implication than what you suggest.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'd be more inclined to accept your conclusion if all they said is "we don't wanna hear it." What was actually said is "If it's poor we don't wanna hear it."

It's a small, but very significant difference that carries a much different implication than what you suggest.

You mean as I quoted in my post:

I presume all this talk of "not hearing" a report of "Poor" braking action is based on these comments:

HOT-2 "if it's poor we don't wanna hear it."

HOT-1 "no."

Likewise, I'd be much more inclined to accept your version if there had been any (and I mean any) discussion of attempting the landing regardless of braking action reports of "Poor".

However, all (and I do mean all) the evidence suggests differently. Over a fairly long timeframe, they repeatedly discussed the ramification that a "Poor" report would have on the runway margin provided by the OPC. They repeatedly suggest that while legal, it was something neither wanted to contemplate.

To believe that in one instant, with no discussion (and I mean none), they independently came to the conclusion that they'd disregard all their previously discussed misgivings and "not hear" a "Poor" braking report requires greater leaps than I'm prepared to make.

Such a leap requires one to believe that the F/O suddenly changed his mind and, with no discussion of why, announces with one comment his newfound willingness to land regardless [HOT-2 "if it's poor we don't wanna hear it"].

It also requires one to believe that the Captain, dispite all his earlier expressed misgivings about "Poor" runway margin and apparent unwillingness to accept that small a margin, not only accepts the F/O's change of heart without a moment's hesitation or a single question but also agrees with it instantly [HOT-1 "no"].

Jim

 

[Diversion]

Forgive me. I did check your posting history, and you post predominantly on the AA boards.

Look at the whole picture, KC. I've made a whopping 87 posts in 44 months. Another reply or two in this thread and the SW forum will likely surpass the AA thread as my most active. Of course, you aren't seeing any of the other 61% I've made in other forums (airline and otherwise). Your claim of bias is unjustified, both from a personal and a statistical sense.

Nice try, though.

 

[Diversion]

You mean as I quoted in my post:
Likewise, I'd be much more inclined to accept your version if there had been any (and I mean any) discussion of attempting the landing regardless of braking action reports of "Poor".

However, all (and I do mean all) the evidence suggests differently. Over a fairly long timeframe, they repeatedly discussed the ramification that a "Poor" report would have on the runway margin provided by the OPC. They repeatedly suggest that while legal, it was something neither wanted to contemplate.

To believe that in one instant, with no discussion (and I mean none), they independently came to the conclusion that they'd disregard all their previously discussed misgivings and "not hear" a "Poor" braking report requires greater leaps than I'm prepared to make.

Such a leap requires one to believe that the F/O suddenly changed his mind and, with no discussion of why, announces with one comment his newfound willingness to land regardless [HOT-2 "if it's poor we don't wanna hear it"].

It also requires one to believe that the Captain, dispite all his earlier expressed misgivings about "Poor" runway margin and apparent unwillingness to accept that small a margin, not only accepts the F/O's change of heart without a moment's hesitation or a single question but also agrees with it instantly [HOT-1 "no"].

Jim

It's not really a leap, it's there black and white. If a plantiff's attorney were to introduce the FO's statement as evidence in a trial, I would not place bets on the flight crew with regards to a positive outcome in said trial.

 

[Diversion]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me see if I understand your logic on this.

CAM-2 "can't do poor."

HOT-2 "one hundred and nine is a eight knot tailwind so if anybody says poor. we can't do it."

HOT-1 "yeah."

They've admitted that if anyone says the braking conditions are poor, they aren't going in. That illustrates sound judgment. Yet in another statement, the crew agrees that if the braking conditions are poor, they don't want to hear it. That is what I have a problem with.

Note that there is no discussion of ignoring a "Poor" braking report anywhere prior to the two remarks that some interpret as an agreement to ignore such a report. In fact, quite the contrary. There is plenty of discussion that would lead one to believe that both pilots considered it too risky even though the OPC was telling them it was legal.

I have never suggested they wanted to ignore a "poor" report. The recording clearly indicates that neither of the crew wanted to hear a "poor" report, even if the braking conditions were poor. They didn't want to hear the words that would send them to another airport, even if the conditions warranted it.

So my conclusion is that "we don't wanna hear it" is not an agreement to ignore a "Poor" braking report but rather further signs of an agreement that such a report would be bad because it would mean that they wouldn't attempt the landing - they would have to either divert or return to holding.

Again, if they only said they didn't want to hear a "poor" report, I'd give your conclusion credibility. The statement of the flight crew indicates otherwise.

If these statements are ever admitted into a trial, I strongly suspect these words will come back to haunt this crew.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Perhaps I misunderstood the point you were making. I took it from this:

19:08:37.4
HOT-2: if it's [braking action] poor we don't wanna hear it.

19:08:38.8
HOT-1: no.

Wow.

and then this part of your next post:

My comments were in line with the subject of this thread, and are expressing my amazement that a flight crew would hope to not want to hear the actual condition of the braking action if it is poor (nevermind the fact that the runway is short and has a tailwind).

to mean that you thought the crew planned to ignore a "Poor" braking report ("not want to hear it" meaning the equivalent of "we'll just not hear it").

From your last post, these two portions clarify for me what you meant:

I have never suggested they wanted to ignore a "poor" report. The recording clearly indicates that neither of the crew wanted to hear a "poor" report, even if the braking conditions were poor. They didn't want to hear the words that would send them to another airport, even if the conditions warranted it.

Again, if they only said they didn't want to hear a "poor" report, I'd give your conclusion credibility. The statement of the flight crew indicates otherwise.

Based on my newfound understanding (hopefully), I think we're just talking semantics. You read those 8 or 9 words and think "They don't want accurate information". I read those same words and think " They're hoping that accurate information won't indicate 'Poor' braking action".

Maybe it's a difference in perspective. You seem to take the words literally. Me? It's similiar to what I've probably said hundreds of times in various situations.

Probable ground holds for flights to my destination hub? I may say to the F/O "I don't want to hear that we've got a delay." Am I really telling him to remain mum if we do have a delay - to keep me in the dark? Of course not - I'm merely expressing a natural human preference for good news (no delay) vs bad news (delay).

If we're enroute and fog at the destination is bringing the visibility closer and closer to landing minimums every time we check it, I might say "I don't want to hear that it's below minimums". Once again, I'm merely expressing a desire that the weather remain above minimums, not a desire that we receive inaccurate information.

Language is a funny thing. More often than not, one's meaning isn't in the words themselves, taken literally. It's in the intention behind the words and the way they're said - both missing in a transcript.

Could a plaintiff's attorney have a field day with those 8 or 9 words, especially taken in isolation? Absolutely, since lawyers are trained to use words as weapons to achieve an outcome (something pilot's are woefully unprepared for). Hopefully, the defendent's attorney would be equally skilled at portraying verbally the crew's intent and meaning behind those same words.

Jim